code of ethics

30
Ethics and Integrity in Multinational Companies Introduction Companies operating in foreign countries find that understanding and complying with variant laws, managing employees far from headquarters, serving customers and relating to suppliers and partners in multiple jurisdictions can introduce significant challenges to developing shared corporate values and realizing a truly global culture. Multinational companies are challenged with three key issues: how to foster a culture of ethical conduct in all countries of operation; how to engage a global workforce in understanding and adopting its corporate values; and how to meet the web of complex legal and compliance obligations that may exist in all its locations. While each of these issues can be examined independently, the solutions require a systematic, holistic approach that reflects a corporate wide commitment to responsible conduct. Global ethics and standards exist in various forms and realities. These ethics include basic human interactions: respect for differences, trust that our counterparts will work with us in a truthful manner, honesty in communication with others, and expectations that each of us will keep our word and maintain credibility. The essence of global ethics and professional standards is based on self- understanding, tolerance of differences, appreciation for the unique, and curiosity of the unknown. Without the personal quest for experiencing new frontiers, and working with other professionals who have their own perceptions of us and ours of them, our professional life would be mundane. 1 Promoting a global corporate culture How does a multinational company create a unified culture that adheres to a high level of business behavior in all global operations while respecting its local workforces and their traditions? Many companies have found the answer lies in following an approach that implements global principles based on corporate values, while allowing for local policies based on cultural traditions. The advantages of this approach are multiple. On one hand, global principles reinforce the values the company seeks to promote in its corporate culture to instill universal standards of

Upload: jandy-sainath

Post on 02-Nov-2014

31 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Engineering Code of Ethics

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Code of Ethics

Ethics and Integrity in Multinational Companies Introduction Companies operating in foreign countries find that understanding and complying with variant laws, managing employees far from headquarters, serving customers and relating to suppliers and partners in multiple jurisdictions can introduce significant challenges to developing shared corporate values and realizing a truly global culture. Multinational companies are challenged with three key issues: how to foster a culture of ethical conduct in all countries of operation; how to engage a global workforce in understanding and adopting its corporate values; and how to meet the web of complex legal and compliance obligations that may exist in all its locations. While each of these issues can be examined independently, the solutions require a systematic, holistic approach that reflects a corporate wide commitment to responsible conduct. Global ethics and standards exist in various forms and realities. These ethics include basic human interactions: respect for differences, trust that our counterparts will work with us in a truthful manner, honesty in communication with others, and expectations that each of us will keep our word and maintain credibility. The essence of global ethics and professional standards is based on self- understanding, tolerance of differences, appreciation for the unique, and curiosity of the unknown. Without the personal quest for experiencing new frontiers, and working with other professionals who have their own perceptions of us and ours of them, our professional life would be mundane. 1 Promoting a global corporate culture How does a multinational company create a unified culture that adheres to a high level of business behavior in all global operations while respecting its local workforces and their traditions? Many companies have found the answer lies in following an approach that implements global principles based on corporate values, while allowing for local policies based on cultural traditions. The advantages of this approach are multiple. On one hand, global principles reinforce the values the company seeks to promote in its corporate culture to instill universal standards of business conduct. On the other hand, local policies demonstrate respect for cultural differences among its global workforces. Consider the issue of business gifts, for example. The company might establish the global principle that employees cannot accept gifts that appear to unduly influence business relationships, based on corporate values of integrity and honesty. In some locations, this may translate into a ban on gifts beyond those of de minimus value, but in other locations where business gifts are legal and customary as a sign of respect for customers, such as in Asia, the local policy would allow for gifts within culturally relevant guidelines that still respect the company's values. This distinction between global principles and local policies can be applied to many business practices throughout the company's operations. Two elements are critical to balancing global principles and local policies: a corporate wide code of conduct with guiding principles and the involvement of local offices in developing local policies.

Page 2: Code of Ethics

Establishing a corporate-wide code of conduct The clearest way to establish uniform principles is by crafting a strong values-based corporate code of conduct. Such a document spells out for all employees the fundamental principles that guide day-to-day interactions and decisions. Values are universally applicable, are easy to remember and far more inspiring than a set of rules. To increase the relevancy of the code, it should be put into the local languages via culturally accurate, relevant translations. To reinforce a uniform global character, some companies publish their code of conduct as a single booklet with sections for each language of their workforce. Involving local offices in local policies To demonstrate sensitivity to local traditions, companies should allow their international business units to supplement the companywide code of conduct with local policies as necessary. To develop these, the local business unit managers and people from various functional areas, such as human resources, legal, finance and audit, might become involved. Enlisting the support of these local functions is important in shaping acceptable policies and dispelling notions that people at the home office dictate standards of behavior without respecting cultural differences. Engaging global employees in ethics and compliance Disseminating the company's principles and policies and achieving buy-in can happen only if the company inspires employees to feel as if they are owners and guardians of the company's values and culture. This task requires developing local leadership as well as engaging employees through education, communication and tools that equip them with the ethics and compliance knowledge and skills needed in their specific jobs. Recommendations for actively engaging global business units and local workforces include: establish a local presence; develop local ethics and compliance leadership; educate all employees; and build culturally responsive reporting systems. Establishing a local presence by forming a corporate-wide ethics and compliance committee As much as possible, companies need to take a local approach when conveying the importance of ethics and compliance. This can best be accomplished by establishing a presence in each location, by either installing satellite ethics and compliance offices or "deputizing" local VPs or general managers to be in charge of the ethics and compliance initiatives in their locations. Some multinational companies form a corporate-wide ethics and compliance committee whose members are the heads of the global business units, each tasked with the ethics and compliance oversight in their location. According to the 2008 LRN ethics and compliance risk management practices study, companies with global operations faced more challenges in controlling and mitigating risk in their international locations than at their headquarters. Specific findings included: • Companies rated themselves as performing better in headquarters than in their international locations. When asked about the accuracy of their risk management process, the average self-rating on a 10-point scale was 7.65 for headquarters versus 6.71 for their international operations. Similarly, when asked about the timeliness of their ability to manage ethics and compliance risk, the average self-rating for companies was 7.60 for headquarters versus 6.69 for their international operations. • When asked about challenges of doing an ethics and compliance risk assessment, 34 percent of respondents identified "difficulty of doing a global assessment." • Educating specific types of employees also varied greatly between headquarters and international locations. For example, while 96 percent of companies educate both "supervisors/

Page 3: Code of Ethics

managers" and "senior executives" in headquarters, the numbers drop to 84 percent and 83 percent respectively in their international operations. • In terms of prevention programs offered, respondent companies also consistently provided more education for employees at their headquarters than for those in their international locations. The challenges and inconsistency of educational programs indicated by the study results suggest that multinational companies need to strengthen efforts to equalize their ethics and compliance management processes throughout their international operations. Activities and programs to educate or certify employees Table 1 Activities/programs in place to educate/certify employees in ethics and compliance risks Code of conduct/ethics 100% 86% Internal communications efforts 90% 77% Online education 88% 70% Electronic certifications/attestations 81% 64% In-person education 76% 63% Formal CEO/senior mgmt involvement 67% 56% Written certifications/attestations 62% 57% Management/leadership development 56% 46% Site visits 57% 48% Employee performance reviews/other incentives 51% 38% No formal programs in place 7% 7% Other 3% 2% Thus, local offices are effective for three reasons: (1) They can be more sensitive to the local cultural traditions and work with headquarters to formulate and approve any necessary policies that differ from corporate wide principles. (2) Their immediate presence helps ensure that local risks are more quickly identified and communicated to headquarters. (3) In providing the home office with an on- the-scene ally, a local ethics and compliance official can clarify any problems that arise, participate in investigations and develop more effective responses to violations. If having a local presence is not possible, those in charge of ethics and compliance at the company's headquarters must make regular site visits to each operating location to develop first-hand insights into the culture, build leadership commitment, determine the best methods to enlist employees and assess potential ethical risks in that location. Having a local presence can assist relations with work councils commonly found in most European countries. Practice has shown the best way to enlist work councils in ethics and compliance is to approach them early and ask for their support. Rather than perceiving them as opponents protecting their membership, engage them as partners in building an ethical and legally compliant corporate culture that creates mutually beneficial rewards. Companies report that establishing a cooperative mindset rather than an adversarial relationship with their European work councils goes a long way to reducing friction over ethics and compliance initiatives.

Page 4: Code of Ethics

Developing local ethics and compliance leadership A company's commitment will not take hold if global employees have the impression that only "the people overseas" care about legal compliance and corporate conduct. The local CEO or general manager plus all local senior executives must become knowledgeable about the company's goals in ethics and compliance so they can set the local tone at the top. To obtain their buy-in, the chief ethics and compliance officer should visit every local CEO or general manager to talk about the importance of the company's initiatives and their role in fully supporting the efforts. Similarly, managers in every territory need to become ethical leaders, capable of modeling responsible conduct for their direct reports who tend to draw lessons more from their immediate supervisors than from senior executives further up the chain. Local managers need targeted education that teaches them how to encourage ethical and lawful conduct among workers and how to deal with reports of violations and unethical conduct. One interesting business practice that some companies use to promote ethical leadership throughout their global territories is to frequently transfer managers outside their home countries. Not only do such transfers broaden a manager's business skills and cultural experiences, they also spread universally acceptable standards of conduct to all the company's business units, thus instilling uniform corporate values. 7 Educating all employees in their first language Employees at every level need clear, precise information to understand the laws and regulations that apply to their jobs and, more important, to understand the corporate values they should adopt in the workplace. Educational efforts must help all employees learn how to go beyond mere compliance by being able to respect not just the letter of the laws affecting their jobs, but the spirit of the laws that should inspire their behavior as stewards of the company's culture. In global companies, the most effective education is often best accomplished using online courses that can easily reach employees living in different cultures and working in different time zones. Educating a global workforce must be done in engaging and culturally relevant ways. In general, this means that global companies must make efforts to educate employees in their first language and tailor the ethics and compliance education to those laws and issues that impact an employee's actual job.

Building culturally responsive reporting systems Effective engagement also includes giving all global employees access to reporting non-compliant conduct. This includes having an anonymous telephone helpline, a website, or both. Global companies must make these available during reasonable time periods at each location, rather than the time period at headquarters. Also, translators should be available for phone lines and the websites should be written in the employees' first language. Note that the extent to which employees use the helpline or website may reflect the effectiveness of your company's ability to enlist employees in ethics and compliance. If reports are low from one of your locations with a significant employee head count, it may indicate that the reporting system is underutilized and more work needs to be done to drive home the company's compliance messages to all employees. Global ethics refers to any form of communication, written or spoken, that applies to providing a service or product to a different culture or country in exchange for compensation or intangible

Page 5: Code of Ethics

reward. In this era of rapid change and globalization, we should expect the best from ourselves and others; deliver more than is required or expected by the highest standards. This will provide a positive direction, improved expectations, accountability, and work toward achieving global standards. I think that there are seven practical reasons that show why global ethics and standards are important to professional consultants, companies and organizations. First, it demonstrates a willingness to play by international rules while raising standards. Secondly, it makes us accountable and predictable during our engagements. Thirdly, it demonstrates a willingness to develop our professional potential. Fourthly, it shows our character and reputation to be more sound and marketable. Fifthly, it shows our desire to develop long-term relationships. Sixthly, it provides us with a leadership role in the global community. Seventhly, it gives uniformity to our professional life rarely found in a changing world. Learning global ethics and standards is another approach to moving from the old way of doing business to developing a new structure. Environmental Ethics

Environmental ethics is the part of environmental philosophy which considers extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from solely including humans to including the non-human world. It exerts influence on a large range of disciplines including environmental law, environmental sociology, ecotheology, ecological economics, ecology and environmental geography. There are many ethical decisions that human beings make with respect to the environment. For example:

Should we continue to clear cut forests for the sake of human consumption? Why should we continue to propagate our species, and life itself? Should we continue to make gasoline powered vehicles? What environmental obligations do we need to keep for future generations? Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the convenience of

humanity? How should we best use and conserve the space environment to secure and expand life?

The academic field of environmental ethics grew up in response to the work of scientists such as Rachel Carson and events such as the first Earth Day in 1970, when environmentalists started urging philosophers to consider the philosophical aspects of environmental problems. Two papers published in Science had a crucial impact: Lynn White's "The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis" (March 1967) and Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" (December 1968). Also influential was Garett Hardin's later essay called "Exploring New Ethics for Survival", as well as an essay by Aldo Leopold in his A Sand County Almanac, called "The Land Ethic," in which Leopold explicitly claimed that the roots of the ecological crisis were philosophical (1949).

There have been a number of scholars who've tried to categorise the various ways the natural environment is valued. Alan Marshall and Michael Smith are two examples of this, as cited by Peter Vardy in "The Puzzle of Ethics". For Marshall, three general ethical approaches have emerged over the last 40 years. Marshall uses the following terms to describe them: Libertarian Extension, the Ecologic Extension and Conservation Ethics.

Libertarian extension

Page 6: Code of Ethics

Marshall’s Libertarian extension echoes a civil liberty approach (i.e. a commitment to extend equal rights to all members of a community). In environmentalism, though, the community is generally thought to consist of non-humans as well as humans.

Andrew Brennan was an advocate of ecologic humanism (eco-humanism), the argument that all ontological entities, animate and in-animate, can be given ethical worth purely on the basis that they exist. The work of Arne Næss and his collaborator Sessions also falls under the libertarian extension, although they preferred the term "deep ecology". Deep ecology is the argument for the intrinsic value or inherent worth of the environment – the view that it is valuable in itself. Their argument, incidentally, falls under both the libertarian extension and the ecologic extension.Peter Singer's work can be categorized under Marshall's 'libertarian extension'. He reasoned that the "expanding circle of moral worth" should be redrawn to include the rights of non-human animals, and to not do so would be guilty of speciesism. Singer found it difficult to accept the argument from intrinsic worth of a-biotic or "non-sentient" (non-conscious) entities, and concluded in his first edition of "Practical Ethics" that they should not be included in the expanding circle of moral worth. This approach is essentially then, bio-centric. However, in a later edition of "Practical Ethics" after the work of Næss and Sessions, Singer admits that, although unconvinced by deep ecology, the argument from intrinsic value of non-sentient entities is plausible, but at best problematic. We shall see later that Singer actually advocated a humanist ethic.

Ecologic extension

Alan Marshall's category of ecologic extension places emphasis not on human rights but on the recognition of the fundamental interdependence of all biological (and some abiological) entities and their essential diversity. Whereas Libertarian Extension can be thought of as flowing from a political reflection of the natural world, Ecologic Extension is best thought of as a scientific reflection of the natural world. Ecological Extension is roughly the same classification of Smith’s eco-holism, and it argues for the intrinsic value inherent in collective ecological entities like ecosystems or the global environment as a whole entity. Holmes Rolston, among others, has taken this approach.

This category might include James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis; the theory that the planet earth alters its geo-physiological structure over time in order to ensure the continuation of an equilibrium of evolving organic and inorganic matter. The planet is characterized as a unified, holistic entity with ethical worth of which the human race is of no particular significance in the long run.

Conservation ethics

Marshall's category of 'conservation ethics' is an extension of use-value into the non-human biological world. It focuses only on the worth of the environment in terms of its utility or usefulness to humans. It contrasts the intrinsic value ideas of 'deep ecology', hence is often referred to as 'shallow ecology', and generally argues for the preservation of the environment on the basis that it has extrinsic value – instrumental to the welfare of human beings. Conservation is therefore a means to an end and purely concerned with mankind and intergenerational considerations. It could be argued that it is this ethic that formed the underlying arguments proposed by Governments at the Kyoto summit in 1997 and three agreements reached in Rio in 1992.

Page 7: Code of Ethics

Humanist theories

Following the bio-centric and eco-holist theory distinctions, Michael Smith further classifies Humanist theories as those that require a set of criteria for moral status and ethical worth, such as sentience.[citation needed] This applies to the work of Peter Singer who advocated a hierarchy of value similar to the one devised by Aristotle which relies on the ability to reason. This was Singer's solution to the problem that arises when attempting to determine the interests of a non-sentient entity such as a garden weed.

Singer also advocated the preservation of "world heritage sites," unspoilt parts of the world that acquire a "scarcity value" as they diminish over time. Their preservation is a bequest for future generations as they have been inherited from our ancestors and should be passed down to future generations so they can have the opportunity to decide whether to enjoy unspoilt countryside or an entirely urban landscape. A good example of a world heritage site would be the tropical rainforest, a very specialist ecosystem or climatic climax vegetation that has taken centuries to evolve. Clearing the rainforest for farmland often fails due to soil conditions, and once disturbed, can take thousands of years to regenerate.

Applied theology

The Christian world view sees the universe as created by God, and humankind accountable to God for the use of the resources entrusted to humankind. Ultimate values are seen in the light of being valuable to God. This applies both in breadth of scope - caring for people (Matthew 25) and environmental issues, e.g. environmental health - and dynamic motivation, the love of Christ controlling and dealing with the underlying spiritual disease of sin, which shows itself in selfishness and thoughtlessness. In many countries this relationship of accountability is symbolised at harvest thanksgiving

When chased by a bear, engineers want to run faster than the bear, managers want to run faster than you. This is known as "the best vs the good enough", and is a very common theme.

For instance, company A releases a good enough technology, company B releases the best technology on the market. B fails and A succeeds, because A releases earlier, or because A's technology is more compatible with the status quo, etc. Engineers will commonly feel sympathy for B, managers will applaud the shrewdness of A.

It's a common story and an interesting angle, but the "best vs good enough" formulation misses something. It sounds as if there's a road towards "the best" - towards the 100%. Engineers want to keep going until they actually reach 100%. And managers force them to quit at 70%

However, frequently the road towards "the best" looks completely different from the road to "the good enough" from the very beginning. The different goals of engineers and managers make their thinking work in different directions. A simple example will illustrate this difference.

Suppose there's a bunch of computers where people can run stuff. Some system is needed to decide who runs what, when and where. What to do?

Page 8: Code of Ethics

An engineer will want to keep as many computers occupied at every moment as possible - otherwise they're wasted.A manager will want to give each team as few computers as absolutely necessary - otherwise they're wasted.These directions aren't just opposite - "as many as possible" vs "as few as necessary". They focus on different things. The engineer imagines idle machines longing for work, and he wants to feed them with tasks. The manager thinks of irate users longing for machines, and he wants to feed them with enough machines to be quiet. Their definitions of "success" are barely related, as are their definitions of "waste".

An engineer's solution is to have everybody submit their jobs to a queue managed by a central server. The Condor software is an example implementation; there are many others, with many subtle issues and differences - or you can roll your own. The upshot is that once a machine becomes idle, it can immediately yank a next job from the server's queue. As long as there's anything left to do, no machine is idle. This is the best possible situation.

A manager's solution is to give the ASIC team 12 servers: asic01, asic02, … asic12. QA gets 20 machines, qa01 … qa20, and so on. If you want to work on a machine, you ssh to it and you work. If you're an ASIC engineer and you want to use a QA machine, you can't log in. If users fight over their team's machines, they can go to their manager. If their manager decides the team needs more machines, he goes to upper management. Good enough.

The "good enough" is not 70% of "the best" - it's not even in the same direction. In fact, it's more like -20%: once the "good enough" solution is deployed, the road towards "the best" gets harder. You restrict access to machines, and you get people used to the ssh session interface, which "the best" solution will not provide.

Which solution is actually better? Tough question.

The manager's solution requires no programming or installation, and trivial administration. The manager's solution requires no changes of habits (ssh is the standard). The engineer's solution yields ~100% utilization, the manager's 50%, 30%, or 10%,

depending. The manager's solution will cause less headache to the managers, on average. Once in a

while, you buy a team some more machines, and they shut up. The engineer's solution requires to set priorities at times of overload, and people will constantly argue about priority with managers.

The engineer's solution doesn't run things on machines that are already busy anyway. Users armed with ssh will tend to do this, possibly with horrible slowdowns due to swapping, etc.

The engineer's solution can provide the lowest latencies. The engineer's solution makes it trivial to utilize new machines - no need to set up sessions,

just submit jobs as previously. This is good - and bad: people will demand new machines instead of reducing the load.

So there are many conflicting considerations. Their importance varies between cases, and is very hard to measure.

"The best" solution is not necessarily the best - rather, it's what the mindset of looking for the best yields. Likewise, the "good enough" solution is not necessarily good enough - it's just what you

Page 9: Code of Ethics

come up with when you look for a good enough approach.

Obviously, portraying "engineers" and "managers" this way is a gross oversimplification, and most real people can look at things from both angles. I like this oversimplification for two reasons:

It does help to understand and predict many common arguments and reactions.A person's perspective frequently does coincide with the title: engineers aim at the best, managers look for the good enough. Just the title is thus a good basis for prediction.How does title affect judgement? There are arguments to the effect of "aiming at the good enough is wiser, and managers are in a better position to achieve wisdom", or vice versa. However, I don't believe either viewpoint is more correct than the other. Rather, they are biases. People in different positions acquire different biases, because they have different incentives and constraints.

The difference in incentives is that engineers are rewarded for success, while managers are rewarded for non-failure.

An exceptional engineer is unique and valuable, like a great chef - being an OK engineer is more like cooking for McDonald's. An engineer needs unusual success to be noticed. One reason such success is achievable is because he works within his area of expertise, on things that he understands. There's rarely a formal quality metric, but his deep understanding creates in him a sense of beauty that serves as his metric.

A manager is fine as long as the project doesn't fail. Most projects fail - if yours didn't, it's quite an achievement. One reason they fail is that there are a lot of ways to fail. Forget just one item in a lengthy checklist, and it won't matter how well the other 99 items are handled. People may not buy a car because there's no convenient place for a resting arm. A manager looks after a whole lot of items, usually without being able to understand most of them in any depth. He's inclined to look for simple pass/fail criteria.

If your success function is a continuous metric, you'll aim at the best. If it's a long list of Boolean values - V or X - you'll want "good enough" (V) at every entry. "The best" is just a costlier way to get a V, at a higher risk to end up with an X. The manager's outlook leads to binarization.

Another difference is that engineers and managers control different things - "One man's constant is another man's variable". In our example, the engineer doesn't decide how many machines to purchase or how to allocate them. If the number of machines is constant, what remains is to make the most of them. The manager, on the other hand, doesn't directly control utilization, and frequently doesn't know how to improve it. If utilization is constant, what remains is to properly ration it.

More generally, engineers tend optimize within constraints set by management, in part because they can't change those constraints. As to managers, they tend to settle for "good enough", in part because they can't optimize.

Which biases lead to more sensible solutions depends on the situation. However, there's a subtle reason to like the engineer's devotion to excellence, despite the manager's pressure for mediocrity. It's precisely when the manager is right in that excellence will not contribute to sales when the engineer contributes the most to users.

Page 10: Code of Ethics

If an engineer's job is done so poorly as to make the product non-marketable, the product will fail and won't be used. When the quality along all dimensions passes the adoption threshold, every improvement along any dimension is effectively a gift to the users - who'd be using the product anyway. This is false where improvements contribute significantly to popularity, but true where they don't.

The improvements are inconsequential for business, but consequential economically. Economically, anything that helps people is good. For business, anything that creates profit is good. Often these definitions of "good" coincide, but sometimes they don't. In these cases, people who aim at excellence for excellence's sake help bridge the gap.

The manager's checklist approach - the business angle - ensures that the product is marketable, which is great because otherwise it won't get used. But the engineer's urge to optimize is closer to the really important goal: making the best of what we've got; this is the economics angle. So while it can lead to problems just like any other bias, it's likeable that way.

Characteristics Engineers ManagersFocus Technical/scientific tasks People (talents, innovation,

relationships);resources (capital, knowledge, process know-how); projects (tasks, procedure, policy)

Decision Making Basis Adequate technical information with great certainty

Fuzzy information under uncertainty (people's behavior, customer needs, market forecasts)

Involvement Perform individual tasks Direct work of others (planning, leading, organizing, controlling)

Work Output Quantitative, measurable Qualitative, less measurable, except financial results, when applicable

Effectiveness Rely on technical expertise and personal dedication

Rely on interpersonal skills to get work done through people (motivation, delegation)

Page 11: Code of Ethics

Code of Ethics in ASME

ETHICS in ASME requires ethical practice by each of its members and has adopted the following Code of Ethics of Engineers.

CODE OF ETHICS OF ENGINEERSThe Fundamental PrinciplesEngineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by:I. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare;II. being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity their clients (including their employers) and the public; andIII. striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession.The Fundamental Canons1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence; they shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.3. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers and shall provide opportunities for the professional and ethical development of those engineers under their supervision.4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest.5. Engineers shall respect the proprietary information and intellectual property rights of others, including charitable organizations and professional societies in the engineering field.6. Engineers shall associate only with reputable persons or organizations.7. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner and shall avoid any conduct which brings discredit upon the profession.8. Engineers shall consider environmental impact and sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.9. Engineers shall not seek ethical sanction against another engineer unless there is good reason to do so under the relevant codes, policies and procedures governing that engineer’s ethical conduct.

Dependency Autonomous Interdependent of others

Responsibility Pursue one task at a time

Pursue multiple objectives concurrently

Creativity Technology cen-tered

People centered (conflict resolution, problem solving, po-litical alliance, networks building)

Bottom Line "How" (operational) "What" and "Why" (strategic)

Concern Will it work techni-cally?

Will it add value (market share, financial, core technology, customer satisfaction)?

Page 12: Code of Ethics

Code of Ethics for ASCEFundamental PrinciplesEngineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by:1. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and the environment;2. being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public, their employers and clients;3. striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession; and4. supporting the professional and technical societies of their disciplines.

Fundamental Canons1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties.2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence. 3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.6. Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.7. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.

IEEE Code of Ethics

The members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:

1. to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environ-ment;

2. to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to af-fected parties when they do exist;

3. to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;  4. to reject bribery in all its forms;  5. to improve the understanding of technology; its appropriate application, and potential conse-

quences;  6. to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for

others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limita-tions;  

7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct er-rors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;  

8. to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;  

Page 13: Code of Ethics

9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious ac-tion;  

10. to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.

CODE OF ETHICS FOR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS

1.0 Preamble 1.1 The Corporate Members of The Institution of Engineers (India) are committed to promote and practice the profession of engineering for the common good of the community bearing in mind the following concerns : 1.1.1 Concern for ethical standard; 1.1.2 Concern for social justice, social order and human rights; 1.1.3 Concern for protection of the environment; 1.1.4 Concern for sustainable development; 1.1.5 Public safety and tranquility. 2.0 The Tenets of the Code of Ethics 2.1 A Corporate Member shall utilise his knowledge and expertise for the welfare, health and safety of the community without any discrimination for sectional or private interests. 2.2 A Corporate Member shall maintain the honour, integrity and dignity in all his professional actions to be worthy of the trust of the community and the profession. 2.3 A Corporate Member shall act only in the domains of his competence and with diligence, care, sincerity and honesty. 2.4 A Corporate Member shall apply his knowledge and expertise in the interest of his employer or the clients for whom he shall work without compromising with other obligations to these Tenets. 2.5 A Corporate Member shall not falsify or misrepresent his own or his associates' qualifications, experience, etc. 2.6 A Corporate Member, wherever necessary and relevant, shall take all reasonable steps to inform himself, his employer or clients, of the environmental, economic, social and other possible consequences, which may arise out of his actions. 2.7 A Corporate Member shall maintain utmost honesty and fairness in making statements or giving witness and shall do so on the basis of adequate knowledge. 2.8 A Corporate Member shall not directly or indirectly injure the professional reputation of another member. 2.9 A Corporate Member shall reject any kind of offer that may involve unfair practice or may

Page 14: Code of Ethics

cause avoidable damage to the ecosystem. 2.10 A Corporate Member shall be concerned about and shall act in the best of his abilities for maintenance of sustainability of the process of development. 2.11 A Corporate Member shall not act in any manner which may injure the reputation of the Institution or which may cause any damage to the Institution financially or otherwise. 3.0 General Guidance The Tenets of the Code of Ethics are based on the recognition that – 3.1 A common tie exists among the humanity and that The Institution of Engineers (India) derives its value from the people, so that the actions of its Corporate Members should indicate the member’s highest regard for equality of opportunity, social justice and fairness; 3.2 The Corporate Members of the Institution hold a privileged position in the community so as to make it a necessity for their not using the position for personal and sectional interests. 4.0 And, as such, a Corporate Member – 4.1 should keep his employer or client fully informed on all matters in respect of his assignment which are likely to lead to a conflict of interest or when, in his judgement, a project will not be viable on the basis of commercial, technical, environmental or any other risks; 4.2 should maintain confidentiality of any information with utmost sincerity unless expressly permitted to disclose such information or unless such permission, if withheld, may adversely affect the welfare, health and safety of the community; 4.3 should neither solicit nor accept financial or other considerations from anyone related to a project or assignment of which he is in the charge; 4.4 should neither pay nor offer direct or indirect inducements to secure work; 4.5 should compete on the basis of merit alone; 4.6 should refrain from inducing a client to breach a contract entered into with another duly appointed engineer; 4.7 should, if asked by the employer or a client, to review the work of another person or organisation, discuss the review with the other person or organisation to arrive at a balanced opinion; 4.8 should make statements or give evidence before a tribunal or a court of law in an objective and accurate manner and express any opinion on the basis of adequate knowledge and competence; and 4.9 should reveal the existence of any interest – pecuniary or otherwise – which may affect the judgement while giving an evidence or making a statement. 5.0 Any decision of the Council as per provisions of the relevant Bye-Laws of the Institution shall be final and binding on all Corporate Members.

Page 15: Code of Ethics

Problems of Bribery

Ethical behavior is not a global standard. In some geographies, paying a bribe is not considered an ethical or moral issue -- it's just the cost of doing business. So should you pay the bribe, too? Aside from the rightness or wrongness of Germany's Siemens paying some $2 billion in bribes, as was revealed recently, such actions do great harm to the institution when uncovered.

Let us examine a typical bribe contract. Suppose that Black wants to sell materials to the XYZ Company. In order to gain the sale, he pays a bribe to Green, the purchasing agent of the company. It is difficult to see what Black has done which libertarian law should consider as illegal. In fact, all he has done is to lower the price charged to the XYZ Company by paying a rebate to Green. From Black's point of view, he would have been just as happy to charge a lower price directly, though presumably he did not do so because the XYZ executives would still not have purchased the materials from him. But the inner workings of the XYZ Company should scarcely be Black's responsibility. As far as he is concerned, he simply lowered his price to the company, and thereby gained the contract.

The illicit action here is, instead, solely the behavior of Green, the taker of the bribe. For Green's employment contract with his employers implicitly requires him to purchase materials to the best of his ability in the interests of his company. Instead, he violated his contract with the XYZ Company by not performing as their proper agent: for because of the bribe he either bought from a firm which he would not have dealt with otherwise, or he paid a higher price than he need have by the amount of his rebate. In either case, Green violated his contract and invaded the property rights of his employers.

In the case of bribes, therefore, there is nothing illegitimate about the briber, but there is much that is illegitimate about the bribee, the taker of the bribe. Legally, there should be a property right to pay a bribe, but not to take one. It is only the taker of a bribe who should be prosecuted. In contrast, left-liberals tend to hold the bribe-giver as somehow more reprehensible, as in some way "corrupting" the taker. In that way they deny the free will and the responsibility of each individual for his own actions.

Let us now use our theory to analyze the problem of payola, which repeatedly arises on radio programs that play popular records. In a typical payola scandal, a record company bribes a disc jockey to play Record A. Presumably, the disc jockey would either not have played the record at all or would have played Record A fewer times; therefore, Record A is being played at the expense of Records B, C, and D which would have been played more frequently if the disc jockey had evaluated the records purely on the basis of his own and/or the public's taste.

Surely, in a moral sense, the public is being betrayed in its trust in the disc jockey's sincerity. That trust turns out to have been a foolish one. But the public has no property rights in the radio program, and so they have no legal complaint in the matter. They received the program without cost. The other record companies, the producers of Records B, C, and D, were also injured since their products were not played as frequently, but they too, have no property rights in the program, and they have no right to tell the disc jockey what to play.

Was anyone's property rights aggressed against by the disc jockey's taking of a bribe? Yes, for as in the case of the bribed purchasing agent, the disc jockey violated his contractual obligation to his employer — whether it be the station owner or the sponsor of the program — to play those

Page 16: Code of Ethics

records which in his view will most suit the public. Hence, the disc jockey violated the property of the station owner or sponsor. Once again, it is the disc jockey who accepts payola who has done something criminal and deserves to be prosecuted, but not the record company who paid the bribe.

Furthermore, if the record company had bribed the employer directly — whether the station owner or the sponsor — then there would have been no violation of anyone's property right and therefore properly no question of illegality. Of course, the public could easily feel cheated if the truth came out, and would then be likely to change their listening custom to another station or sponsor.

What about the case of plugola, where one sponsor pays for the program, and another company pays the producer of the program to plug its own product? Again, the property right being violated is that of the sponsor, who pays for the time and is entitled therefore to have sole advertising rights on the program. The violator of his property is not the maverick company that pays the bribe, but the producer who violates his contract with the sponsor by accepting it.

Nepotism:

Nepotism can have a high negative impact on peoples' lives. Children affected by favoritism in a family or school develop issues associated with social development. What happens when nepotism occurs at the job level?

What is Nepotism?Nepotism is nothing but a favoritism shown by the company to the relatives or friends of the employer or the owner. When the friends or the relatives are granted a new job, promotion or higher career opportunity, regardless of merit, the act is known as nepotism. At times, the managers develop a like or dislike towards a particular team member and act accordingly. This act is also called nepotism.

The Common Reasons for Nepotism in the Workplace

According to Huseyin Arasli from BNET, the CBS interactive business network, the service industries in micro-geographies are prone to nepotism at various work levels. The sociocultural, economic and political structures are given as the common reasons for such favoritism in such geographies. What happens in the bigger places and organizations? Employees undergo nepotism in one way or another in bigger organizations as well. This cronyism will create both short and long term negativity among employees and in turn impact the organizational growth.

How does Nepotism Affect Employee Morale?

Why do people prefer having their relatives or friends at their workplace? What do they achieve, apart from benefiting their relatives or friends?According to Ron Prokosch, president of The Prokosch Group, HR consulting firm, employing relatives or friends saves costs on recruiting and training.It is also believed to help reduce employee turnover since the relatives are highly committed to organizational growth.

Nepotism pros and cons

Page 17: Code of Ethics

The support for nepotism generally presents the following points:• Lower recruiting costs: Nepotism allows firms to inexpensively identify a pool of candidates for positions (i.e. relatives of current employees). Firms that encourage hiring of relatives let their own employees do much of the recruiting for the company. However, where the objective is to hire the most qualified person for the job, limiting your market focus may not accomplish this objective.• Lower training costs: Family members usually know a great deal about the company they are joining, and are more likely to be satisfied with what they find. It has been said that newly hired relatives are more dedicated to learning the job in order to “make their relatives proud”.• Lower employee turnover: It is suggested that family members are often the most dedicated employees. At several of the large businesses with whom we spoke, relatives of current employees are sought out because past experience has shown them to be the most motivated, conscientious workers. These firms have also found that related employees have significantly lower absenteeism.• Higher level of commitment and a sense of ownership: Working on the same team with other relatives creates a greater sense of commitment and personal interest in the success of the company. Employees who know that their family members may be impacted by their actions have an extra reason to want the company to grow and prosper.• Higher level of loyalty: The opportunity to work with one’s son, daughter or cousin is considered by most employees to be an intangible benefit of working for a company. However, in this day it would be very rare indeed, that a valued employee would stay with a company so that they might have an opportunity later to mentor their son or daughter as employees of the same firm.• Higher level of morale: A “family-type” environment can boost the morale of all employees, and positively impact customer relations. Thomas Publishing, a large media company in New York City, views an employee’s desire to bring another relative to the company as a great endorsement of the business. “It means that Thomas Publishing is a good, caring place.” (Molofsky, 1999) However, for this to happen it is critical that such climates exist for all employees at all times, which requires strict guidelines.• Higher trust levels: In organizations with a high degree of family involvement, there is often a higher level of commitment to “working through problems.” As one executive stated, “at the end of the day they are all family, and they have to get along …”In theory, this may support the case for employment of relatives. In practice though, there are many problems and difficulties with managing the trust factor so that it is consistent across all employees and the entire organization and not just reserved for the “inner circle.”

Issues raised by nepotism• Favouritism: Nepotism provides opportunities for favouritism in hiring, promoting and salary and bonus decisions. For this reason, companies with formal policies would generally not allow for family members to make such decisions.• Discipline: Nepotism can create disciplinary problems for managers if they have to deal with a relative of another employee. Problems involving family members will often lead to a “polarization of perspectives” within the workplace, producing economic inefficiencies.• Fraud: Nepotism can break down the system of “checks and balances” that are established in businesses. Some argue that this increases the likelihood of employee fraud. I recall one example from my own career where 19 employees had to be terminated. They worked in a large retail organization and would discount merchandiseto a fellow employee/relative. • Confidentiality: It is assumed that family members will be more likely to share confidential information with other family members which they might not otherwise do. This can result in

Page 18: Code of Ethics

suspicion, mistrust and paranoia or resentment and the general withdrawal of other employees in providing key information.• Empowerment: Life as the “supervisor’s son” can be difficult. Performance expectations are higher, and often nepots have a hard time determining if their success was due to their performance or because they are the boss’ son.• Personal issues: Firstly, not all family relationships are positive and mutually respectful. Personal issues and difficult relationships at home can make it difficult to work and interact effectively at work. Or, when workplace differences occur, inappropriate workplace behaviours such as shouting or pouting often arise and when such differences enter the home it can put a strain on the marriage or family relationships too. These behaviours are, of course, unprofessional and inappropriate and have a negative effect on the other employees who have to cope with this uncomfortable atmosphere.

Paternalism (or parentalism) is behavior, by a person, organization or state, which limits some person or group's liberty or autonomy for their own good. Paternalism can also imply that the behavior is against or regardless of the will of a person, or also that the behavior expresses an attitude of superiority. Paternalism can also imply that the behavior is against or regardless of the will of a person, or also that the behavior expresses an attitude of superiority.

The word paternalism is from the Latin pater for father, though paternalism should be distinguished from patriarchy. Paternalism is sometimes thought appropriate towards children and paternalism towards adults is sometimes thought to treat them as if they were children.

Soft and Hard Paternalism

The terms soft and hard are used in two quite different senses in this context. Philosophers, following Joel Feinberg's influential book Harm to Self (1986), usually use "soft paternalism" for paternalism towards a person whose action or choice is insufficiently voluntary to be genuinely hers. Hard paternalism in this usage means paternalism towards a person whose action or choice is sufficiently voluntary to be genuinely hers. Soft paternalism in this usage may also refer to interference with a person aimed to establish whether or not her action or choice is sufficiently voluntary. In contrast, economists and lawyers usually use "soft paternalism" for mild paternalism, that is paternalism that is not coercive, or not very "heavy-handed". For example, libertarian paternalism is soft paternalism in this sense. Hard paternalism in this usage is coercive paternalism.

Page 19: Code of Ethics
Page 20: Code of Ethics

References 1. Adirondack, S., Just about managing?, London, Voluntary Service Council, 2006 2. Caney, S., Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory Oxford, OUP, 2005 3. Commers, M.S. R., Vandekerckhove, Wim and Verlinden, An Ethics in an Era of Globalisation Aldershot, Ashgate, 2008 4. Gould, Carol C.,The New Global Ethics and Its Three Faces in an Era of Globalisation, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2008 5. Hofstede, G., Hofstede G.-J., Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind, New York, McGraw-Hill , 2004 6. Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. H., The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economic growth, Organizational Dynamics 16 (4), 4-21, 1988 7. Hofstede, G., Culture’s consequences: international differences in work- related values Beverly Hills, Sage, 1980 8. Hofstede, G., Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: inter-cultural co-operation and its importance for survival, Maidenhead, McGrowHill, 1991 9. Ionescu, Gh. Gh., Dimensiunile culturale ale managementului, Bucuresti, Editura Economica, 1996 10. Jonathan S., The Dignity of Difference. London, Continuum, 2004 11. Kennedy, A.A., The New Corporate Cultures. London, Perseus, 1999 12. Manfred B. Steger, Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003 13. Nicolescu, O., Verboncu, I., Management, Bucureşti, Editura Economică, 2000 14. Rebecca T. P., In Search of the Good Life. New York, Continuum, 2004